Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36454884›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Comparison of dosimetric effects of MLC positional errors on VMAT and IMRT plans for SBRT radiotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer.

Jia Deng, Yun Huang, Xiangyang Wu, Ye Hong, Yaolin Zhao

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Impact of MLC error on dose distribution in SRS treatment of single-isocenter multiple brain metastases: comparison between DCAT and VMAT techniques.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jia DengDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shaanxi Provincial Cancer Hospital, Xi'an, Shaanxi, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0002-9251-6818
Yun HuangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Xianyang Central Hospital, Xi'an, Shaanxi, People's Republic of China.
Xiangyang WuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shaanxi Provincial Cancer Hospital, Xi'an, Shaanxi, People's Republic of China.
Ye HongCenter of Digestive Endoscopy, Shaanxi Provincial Cancer Hospital, Xi'an, Shaanxi, People's Republic of China.
Yaolin ZhaoSchool of Nuclear Science and Technology, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, People's Republic of China.
Shanxi Medical University · CNXi'an Jiaotong University · CNXian Yang Central Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The positional accuracy of multi-leaf collimators (MLC) is important in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). The aim of this study was to investigate the impact between MLC positional error and dosimetry of volume intensity modulated (VMAT) and general intensity modulated (IMRT) plans for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Fifteen patients with NSCLC were selected to design the 360 SBRT-VMAT plans and the 360 SBRT-IMRT error plans. The DICOM files for these treatment plans were imported into a proprietary computer program that introduced delivery errors. Random and systematic MLC position (0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 mm) errors were introduced. The systematic errors were shift errors (caused by gravity), opening errors, and closing errors. The CI, GI, d2cm and generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD) were calculated for the original plan and all treatment plans, accounting for the errors. Dose sensitivity was calculated using linear regression for MLC position errors. The random MLC errors were relatively insignificant. MLC shift, opening, and closing errors had a significant effect on the dose distribution of the SBRT plan. VMAT was more significant than IMRT. To ensure that the gEUD variation of PTV is controlled within 2%, the shift error, opening error, and closing error of IMRT should be less than 2.4 mm, 1.15 mm, and 0.97 mm, respectively. For VMAT, the shift error, opening error, and closing error should be less than 0.95 mm, 0.32 mm, and 0.38 mm, respectively. The dose sensitivity results obtained in this study can be used as a guide for patient-based quality assurance efforts. The position error of the MLC system had a significant impact on the gEUD of the SBRT technology. The MLC systematic error has a greater dosimetric impact on the VMAT plan than on the IMRT plan for SBRT, which should be carefully monitored.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungLung NeoplasmsRadiosurgeryRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedHumansRadiometry

Identifiers

PMID36454884
PMCPMC9714892
OpenAlexW4311068754

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.